Arkansas state legislators voted to override Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of a bill that will ban abortions in the state at 20 weeks, unless the woman is a victim of rape, incest or her life is at risk due to a medical emergency.

On Wednesday, the override passed the House with 53 votes, which included all 51 Republicans and two Democrats. The bill then moved to the Senate floor on Thursday, where it received 19 Republican votes to complete the override.

In Arkansas, legislators can override a governor's veto by a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the House and 18 votes in the Senate. During this legislative session, Republicans have a slight majority in the House, holding 51 of the 100 seats, and in the Senate, where they hold 21 of the 35 seats.

Rep. Andy Mayberry (R-Hensley), the sponsor of HB 1037, "an act to create the pain-capable unborn child protection act and to declare an emergency," told The Christian Post that he's happy about the outcome. "I am certainly pleased that the Arkansas General Assembly chose to override the veto of this life-preserving bill that reflects the pro-life values of the people of this state," Mayberry said. "This is a good law that I believe will hold up under constitutional and judicial scrutiny. Most importantly, it will save innocent babies who are capable of feeling pain from suffering a horrific, painful death."

Mayberry told CP that under the current Arkansas law, abortions can be performed up-to 25 weeks. He also added that an abortion can be performed up-to 40 weeks, if a doctor says that a baby is not viable, or if the mother faces a medical emergency.

Beebe, who vetoed HB 1037 earlier this week, said in his veto letter that he's concerned about legal costs the state could incur if an outside organization decides to challenge the constitutionality of the bill.

"In the last case in which the constitutionality of an Arkansas abortion statute was challenged, Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Jegley (1999), the state was ordered to pay the prevailing plaintiffs and their attorneys nearly $119,000 for work in the trial court, and an additional $28,900 for work on the state's unsuccessful appeal," said Beebe.

According to Mayberry, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has claimed that they will challenge the law. "I'm not sure what they would gain," said Mayberry who added that the Arkansas law is based on similar legislation that passed in Nebraska and has not been challenged since it became law in October 2010.

Good.
What I never understand is the exception for rape or incest, the baby should die?
No the issue of heath of the mother is bogus, that can be anything.
If the issue is, will the mother die if the pregnancy is not terminated, that’s different but every effort should be made to save both.

My nice’s baby was born at 25 weeks 3 days (the best they could determine). It was really weird she had had successful pregnancies in the past put her blood pressure was dropping then shooting up, heart rate was wildly fluctuating....she was monitored complete bed rest...gave her some kind of shots (to help lung development).
Anyway, she would not connect to a C-Section unless they swore they would try and save the baby.
Little guy had his tenth birthday last month.
A Jewell among men.

Ok, that was a long way to ask the question why do these babies died because of the circumstances of their conception.

5
posted on 03/01/2013 2:37:21 PM PST
by svcw
(Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)

It’s a start. If the courts don’t throw it out, it’ll save some babies. That’s ultimately what we want. The governor was overridden with the slimmest margin. I morally and philosophically pure bill would have been defeated and babies would continue to die.

6
posted on 03/01/2013 2:39:32 PM PST
by demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)

I disagree that it won’t save babies. I agree that we can’t give up equal protection for all humans. I don’t think this legislation does that. This is overt incrementalism. Beebee knows that and that’s why he vetoed. They could have done nothing and allowed 22 week old babies to be murdered, or passed this legislation. Those were their options.

They need decent state-wide leadership. Which I think they’ll get. This is the first time in 100 years Arkansas has conservatives leading both houses. Obama has turned that state red. I know people in that capital and they’re true conservatives.

9
posted on 03/01/2013 2:49:39 PM PST
by demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)

Here in my state we, through the auspices of my state representative, have offered legislation that provides equal protection for all persons, as the Constitution explicitly and imperatively requires.

Because of the years of “pro-life” legislators’ encoding of “law” that allows the killing of some classes of human beings, this clean, constitutional legislation had to include the stripping out of large portions of the existing code.

Its a start. If the courts dont throw it out, itll save some babies. Thats ultimately what we want. The governor was overridden with the slimmest margin. I morally and philosophically pure bill would have been defeated and babies would continue to die.

The majority opinion held that "ethical and moral concerns", including an interest in fetal life, represented "substantial" state interests, which (assuming they do not impose an "undue" burden) could be a basis for legislation at all times during pregnancy, not just after viability. Thus, the Court clarified that the pre-viability/post-viability distinction was not implicated in Carhart.

Nothing here about personhood. Your judgment of the "immorality" of the law is uncalled for and unwarranted.

But it’s not, in fact, baby steps. A) It’s not morally right to pass laws that say you can kill some innocent persons. B) It’s not constitutional. C) We have forty years of experience that tells us it doesn’t work, because you’re giving up the principles that argue against the practice of human abortion every time you pass one of these bills.

Wilberforce went through the same thing in the effort to end slavery in the British Empire. For decades he and his cohort in Parliament tried the compromise, incremental approach, until finally they figured out that it wasn’t right, and that it DID NOT WORK. So, they changed to a no-compromise equal protection approach, which very quickly prevailed. Without a civil war, I might add.

Its a start. If the courts dont throw it out, itll save some babies. Thats ultimately what we want. The governor was overridden with the slimmest margin. I morally and philosophically pure bill would have been defeated and babies would continue to die.

Rita Sklar and the ACLU are going to lead the charge on the challenge. There is already a plan in place for fending it off - unfortunately, it is going to get expensive.

While I don't find Beebe to be a horid Dem - hell, I supported him (compared to Northern Dems, he would be considered a rampant Conservative), we need to put in place a strong Constitutionalist Gov. and AG. If we run Asa, it will not end well - he is a plague and will get trounced at the polls. Curtis Coleman is the man, and we need to get him past Asa in the primary.

24
posted on 03/01/2013 4:06:55 PM PST
by RobertClark
("May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't" - George S. Patton)

By the way, "viability" arguments are as irrelevant as "pain" arguments. The question constitutionally is "are they a person?"

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

-- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

“A) Its not morally right to pass laws that say you can kill some innocent persons.”

But the law right now allows the murder of *any and all* innocent persons before their deaths. How many additional babies are you willing to sacrifice in the name of waiting for a perfect law, which certainly won’t come without winning some battles along the way? I’m with Father Frank Pavone on this one.

“B) Its not constitutional.”

I agree with you. And if we had an enlightened majority in the Supreme Court and the Arkansas law was struck down because it violates the inalienable right to life of innocent human beings, then we would get exactly what we want, thatnks to that law. Unfortunately, if the law was struck down, it would be for not permitting abortion in enough circumstances. The law that you and I would pass would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional, and would set back the pro-life cause for years.

“C) We have forty years of experience that tells us it doesnt work, because youre giving up the principles that argue against the practice of human abortion every time you pass one of these bills.”

I would posit that we have much more than 40 years experience that tells us that it is counterproductive to make the perfect the enemy of the good. We need to tear down Roe v. Wade brick by brick, and then, when states finally are able to ban abortion, fight for the right to life in all 50 states (passing the most pro-life law possible in each state—if you can’t ban abortion in New Jersey without an exception for rape or incest, then do that, and try for a full ban later. Or perhaps get Congress to use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to ban abortion nationwide as a violation of a state abridging the right to life without due process of law; and then we can then try to elect large enough pro-life majorities so that Congress can propose a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and then fight for ratification by 3/4 of the states. But we won’t win the war if we insist on losing every battle.

“Wilberforce went through the same thing in the effort to end slavery in the British Empire. For decades he and his cohort in Parliament tried the compromise, incremental approach, until finally they figured out that it wasnt right, and that it DID NOT WORK. So, they changed to a no-compromise equal protection approach, which very quickly prevailed.”

Actually, you are absolutely wrong about this. Wilberforce did not insist that the only acceptable outcome of legislation was banning slavery throughout the British Empire, and he did not oppose laws that fell short of that. He fought for emancipation for 26 years, and in 1807 finally convinced Parliament to ban the slave trade. He did not oppose the Slave Trade Act of 1807 because it didn’t ban slavery; he accepted it as a necessary first step towards emancipation.

Wilberforce then fought until his death for emancipation, and died a few days after hearing confirmation that slavery would finally be banned in the British Empire. And even then, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 did not prohibit slavery on certain parts of the British Empire (such as what are now India and Sri Lanka, and the island of St. Helena); that came 10 years later, with a law that passed thanks to the prior passage of the imperfect emencipation act of 1833.

So the lesson we should learn from Wilberforce’s fight to end slavery is not to compromise on your principles, but accept partial victories instead of total defeats.

If you support creating a class of human beings that can be murdered “legally,” based solely on the belief that they cannot feel pain, surely you would have no problem with a “law” that said it was okay to put a bullet through the heart of a paraplegic, right? Or one that said you could snuff out Grandma if you’ve given her enough morphine? I mean, after all, they won’t feel a thing!

That’s what I call this legislation: The “Don’t Worry, They Won’t Feel A Thing” laws.

The law bans abortion (with some exceptions) after 20 weeks, which is earlier than any law that has withstood judicial review. The “pain” thing is the gimmick used to convince courts that the state has a compelling state interest that outweighs “the woman’s right to privacy” that Harry Blackmun pulled out of his [donkey] in 1973.

Did he say that before or after he accepted a ban on the slave trade, knowing that emancipation would take much longer to be adopted and that enacting a ban on the slave trade was a good start towards his eventual goal?

And insisting that only a total abortion ban in Arkansas would be acceptable is even dumber than settling only for total emancipation would be in Parliament in 1807, since not only would a total abortion ban not pass, if somehow it did it immediately would be enjoined by the courts from going into effect and it would be declared unconstitutional soon thereafter.

Exceptions, ie failure to provide equal protection to all, is what opened the door to abortion on demand in this country, and they are what keeps abortion on demand in place.

You’ve given up the moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion. Therefore you can never possibly end it, any more than a soldier who disarmed and stripped naked could walk into Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban.

Justice Scalia, arguably one of the most Conservative members of the Supreme Court disagrees. He does not believe that “Equal Protection” applies to a Fetus, and he has said as much on numerous occasions.

That does not mean he agrees with Roe v. Wade, because he doesn't. He thinks it is made up Law that has no basis of fact in the Constitution.

Nonetheless, the chances of any reversal of Roe v. Wade sailed out to Sea the moment Obama won his Second Term and the Rats kept the Senate. The day will not come for its repeal in our Lifetimes or our Children's Lifetimes.

Stacking the Court for generations to come with Liberal Justices is set in stone. Obama will haunt us all until the day we die, of that I am certain. We have to take whatever Victories we can, whether pure to our intentions or not. As Obama says, if we protect just one Child's life. (yeah, I know)

Fundamentally, your arguments are purely Utilitarian, not moral, and not Constitutional.

Utilitarianism can never restore the moral basis of our form of government and our claim to liberty.

The bottom line is that the child in the womb is a person, and our Constitution absolutely requires that every person be provided with the equal protection of the laws. The oath of office that every officer of government, in every branch, at every level, must take requires that this be done.

Roe is an immoral, unconstitutional forty year-old court opinion in a particular case.

The only reason it has any meaning is because folks like yourself grant to the courts power they don’t rightfully possess.

Actually it is about as meaningful as the Dred Scott decision, or at least would be, if legislators and executives would simply fulfill their own oaths, and provide appropriate checks and balances against oathbreakers in the judiciary.

"Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, rounded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them, the people adopt them, the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common-sense, and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning or any extraordinary gloss."

-- Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451.

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The "Akin question" is not intended to be a trick question. It's intended to bring the candidate's precise views into focus before the electorate.

Because the electorate is made up of: (1) a core of 100% pro-abort liberals: (2) a core of 100% pro-life conservatives; and (3) a whole lot of people in the middle who think that abortion as "personal choice" is wrong, and late term abortion is barbaric, but an abortion for thirteen year old Suzy two weeks after being assaulted by her uncle is regrettably necessary.

And as long as that middle group swings the election, any candidate answering "yes" to the question I have posed will lose. Every time.

So the pro-life movement must precede the issue of "who runs for office?" with "how do we get more voters from the mushy middle over to our side?"

They’re not part of the choir, though, if they don’t understand the natural law, natural right, moral basis of this free republic.

When even FReepers don’t understand, or choose to ignore, the most fundamental and important facts about our national principles, the Constitution’s stated purposes, and its explicit, imperative requirements, it’s obvious that the first work that has to be accomplished is among those who claim to be “pro-life” conservatives.

They are at the same time the main obstacle to ending the bloodshed, AND the only hope for doing so.

Realistically, show how the Personhood bill will save one life. I agree, it should but I do not believe it will because of the current makeup of the SC and that won't get any better with Obama as president.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.